(15-02-2014 09:49 PM)toadaly Wrote: We are limitted by such things. If 'nothing' is not consistent within the framework of the tools we have, then it isn't a concept at all. Talking about nothing, is literally and philosophically, not talking about anything, if it isn't consistent.

Of course, but "what we can understand" and "what can actually exist" need not be strictly overlapping sets.

(15-02-2014 09:49 PM)toadaly Wrote: In regard to the axioms of logic, this is not obvious. They seem to be so fundamental, that not only do we never observe them being violated, but we can not even imagine it. It's *possible* that logic is only a human construct - some wierd quirk in our brain construction that makes all our experiences consistent, but if so, then attempting to talk about something that doens't fit in there, like 'nothing', still makes no sense.

I'm not disputing that we cannot conceptualise an entirely coherent definition of nothing.

But the old caveat always applies: we don't know what we don't know.

(15-02-2014 09:49 PM)toadaly Wrote: In 'possible worlds' semantics, the minimum possible world, must neverthess include the axioms of logic.

Why?

(15-02-2014 09:49 PM)toadaly Wrote: Because it's not anything, not even the axioms of logic. ...unless you qualify it to include them. But suppose you do. Ok now you have a 'possible world', that contains nothing except logic. You can't get from that to here, because even in that world, time does not exist, so to get from nothing to something, requires that something exist, which is still a contradiction.

Time is a characteristic of our universe. It is tied to the concept of observable transitions...

It needn't - for example - be in any way applicable to whatever (may have) existed prior to our universe.

The bible is proof that people know how to make up stories and write them down, then copy them, then make errors while copying and then making up new stuff they like and removing stuff they don't like.

Once you know how the book was put together, you won't see it as holy anymore. You'll see it for what it is. A book of stories

(16-02-2014 01:24 PM)cjlr Wrote: Of course, but "what we can understand" and "what can actually exist" need not be strictly overlapping sets.

Nothign is not a somethign that could exist. It's the lack of existence of anything. We're not discussing whether unicorns might exist, but rather, the nonexistence of anything. Nothing, is *less*, rather than more. I'm not sure then whey we should not expect to fully understand whether it's possible.

At any rate, we are still stuck with what we can understand. If someone postulates a square circle, we need not take it seriously even though the argument might be made that our minds just can't imagine it. Well, sure they can't, because it's a contradiction, so why is anyone even throwing it out there?

Quote:But the old caveat always applies: we don't know what we don't know.

I guess I'm just stubborn. I'm not willing to consider things that are not logical, as merely being a limitation of what I know.

Quote:

(15-02-2014 09:49 PM)toadaly Wrote: In 'possible worlds' semantics, the minimum possible world, must neverthess include the axioms of logic.

Why?

Without noncontradiction, contradictions become actual. That isn't possible, by the very definition of 'possible'. So any world we want to imagine, in order to be possible, must include the axioms of logic.

A group that can't even agree as to how old the world is on its forums?

Tell you what. When they stop banning people who post links to science pages "Because they don't want evolution propaganda." spread into their forum, maybe people will even think about glancing at said site.

Guys, it is a mistake to try to deduce the logic of physical processes that take place outside of human common sense. Philosophy using human common sense and deduction won't be able to answer the origin question. Physics is.